GOPer Who Got Millions in Farm Subsidies Thinks the Poor Should Starve Rather Than Get Food Stamps

Not everyone is afforded the luxury of being able to store away vast sums in the event an unpredictable event occurs. In an ideal world, sure,
but first give me this ideal world as I would like to see it.

No, instead we must do the best with what we have. I think we can do a lot better, wouldn't you agree?

I suggest you read it, and TRY to wrap your head around this man's life experience. I'm not even going to ex-text it for you, either. The burden is
on YOU to prove your allegations. And your character.

You decided I was "attack-worthy" from our first interaction, and you're the one claiming that I "hate all Republicans". It's ridiculous.

The very first thread I encountered you on that you created was nearly the same as this one here, ie that some Republican wanted to do some budget
cuts, and it so happens that it focused on welfare for poor children, and of course it involved the children of illegal immigrants who come here to
get such things because we give it. Ambulances also come over the border and women have their babies here to get the free medical care. You are
terribly naïve to fall for this line of "We have to feed all the poor" nonsense that the welfare statists keep piling on. By the way, the ambulances
coming over the border and people getting free emergency care that way have bankrupted hospitals in California.
Anyway, the theme is exactly the same, you feel that Republicans who try to cut the budget are evil and selfish. If you really cared about people
equally, then it would bother you that Obama is making 85 million from his BP Oil stock which Vanguard dumped conveniently prior to the spill
disaster, and our POTUS made money off that deal while residents in Louisiana and the Gulf area of Florida got sick and died from toxic corexit.
I have yet to hear you complain about anything Progressives do. I am 99.999 % certain your outrage is 100% partisan and chosen expressly for the
Progressive agenda
Yes I am 99.999 % positive.
I hear Progressives on this forum also sporting the desire to tax churches. I find that really interesting because churches are the first line in
charity work for the poor. So why do Progressives want to tax churches therefore reducing their output on private charity work, but making sure Uncle
Sam gets more taxes, presumably to do the same, but we can be fairly certain it goes for black budget programs more than it goes toward feeding the
hungry.

Glenn Beck's Mercury radio did a direct fundraising for the victims of the Oklahoma tornado and the very first day they raised 1.2 million.
But you bash Glenn Beck every chance you get.
I think it is you who needs to revise your understanding of things.

If you want to do the right thing, then learn the reality.

The national spotlight is on Arizona for doing what the Federal government and previous Governor Napolitano refused to do: rein in an invasion of
illegal aliens bankrupting our state (Arizona). At an August 2009 healthcare Town Hall in Phoenix, legislators said that more than half of
Arizona’s 4 billion dollar budget deficit was the result of paying for three areas of services to illegal immigrants: education, healthcare, and
incarceration.

Estimates are that 20-40% of uncompensated (“free”) medical services are provided to people in the US illegally. The actual number may be
much higher.

What are consequences to taxpaying citizens?
1. Increased cost and reduced access to trauma care. Tucson has lost all but one Level I Trauma Center to serve all of southern Arizona, in large
part due to massive, unsustainable losses from uncompensated care. Auto accidents involving overloaded vans of illegal aliens happen regularly in
southern Arizona. Injured are flown by air ambulance to University Medical Center’s Trauma Center and treated with state of the art care….all at
taxpayer expense.
2. A registered nurse involved with the Pima County health system since the 1970’s who must remain anonymous because of her role, said she has
never seen any staff member at either El Rio Clinic or Pima County Health Department ask for proof of citizenship before providing free medical
services (immunizations, Well Baby checks, food stamps, WIC services, birth control, and even elective abortions). Costs are paid by taxpayers. When
funds are depleted, low income American citizens have fewer services and longer waits as a result.

3. This same RN also said: “I personally know Mexican men who married 16 year old girls, got them pregnant, brought them to Tucson for the baby to
become a US citizen. They live in Mexico but come here for their health care. Taxpayers pay for this medical care many ways, at the Public Health
Department, and with school nurses who provide care.”

www.aapsonline.org...
Tell me when did it become my duty as an American taxpayer to pay for abortions for 16 year olds living in another country?

Apparently Obama has made it even easier for people in foreign countries to get food stamps and other benefits.

You need to WAKE UP to the reality instead of walking around with that smug attitude that you are helping all the world's poor, and see that all you
are doing is typical socialist redistribution of wealth, and you are also VERY good at CLASS WARFARE.
You and other Progressives support completely reckless and unsustainable social and economic policies that enable people to take advantage. This is
part of what's wrong with socialism. It is easy to give away other people's money isn't it?

That is all very nice that an illegal turned out to be a neurosurgeon. What you are doing is what Progressives do all the time, you cherry pick
individual cases to highlight to make a point. In this point, you are defending the millions of dollars of taxpayer funds that go to illegals by
saying, well they become brilliant neurosurgeons so it was a good investment. You can justify anything, and Progressives do that. The Ends justify the
Means. Heard that before?
Illegal is illegal and you justify breaking our laws by illegals and then point to one guy and say, see it was a good investment. Well, what about the
guy who did it all legal and waited in line? Why should an illegal jump the line, get taxpayer money, and deny others who are waiting legally?
Your sense of justice is completely skewed. But what's new? That is just the Progressive way.

Oh yes and again, CNN tries to manipulate the public by referring to him as a "migrant worker" because they know that people are mad that illegals
jump the fence and take jobs, you know the ones YOU can't get. Then they just casually throw in that he "jumped the fence".

Why don't you read something too, like what Mexico does to Salvadorans who jump their fences.

I don't have to prove my character to you any more than you have to prove yours. But I see through the veneer of Progressive conditioning and I can
tell a hit piece when I see one.

By the way, when were you going to address the system of government run farm subsidies dating from 1922?

After all, it is government regulation of agricultural prices.

Now I suggested already on this thread that I don't support across the board farm subsidies, so don't even go there with accusing me of supporting
special interests. And I also don't support government manipulation of commodity prices. Maybe you do.

Here's probably more stuff you didn't know about farm subsidies

Government intervention in food and fiber commodity markets began long ago. The classic case of farm subsidy through trade barriers is the English
Corn Laws, which for centuries regulated the import and export of grain in Great Britain and Ireland. They were repealed in 1846. Modern agricultural
subsidy programs in the United States began with the New Deal and the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933. With trade barriers already in place for
agricultural commodities and everything else, this law gave the government the power to set minimum prices and included government stock acquisition,
land idling, and schemes to cut supplies by destroying livestock. Land idling and livestock destruction were sometimes mandatory and sometimes induced
by compensation (Benedict 1953).

Economists have criticized farm subsidies on several counts. First, farm subsidies typically transfer income from consumers and taxpayers to
relatively wealthy farmland owners and farm operators. Second, they impose net losses on society, often called deadweight losses, and have no clear
broad social benefit (Alston and James 2002). Third, they impede movements toward more open international trade in commodities and thus impose net
costs on the global economy (Johnson 1991; Sumner 2003).

Supporters of farm subsidies have argued that such programs stabilize agricultural commodity markets, aid low-income farmers, raise unduly low
returns to farm investments, aid rural development, compensate for monopoly in farm input supply and farm marketing industries, help ensure national
food security, offset farm subsidies provided by other countries, and provide various other services. However, economists who have tried to
substantiate any of these benefits have been unable to do so (Gardner 1992; Johnson 1991; Wright 1995).

Some subsidy programs, such as import tariffs, actually generate tax revenue for the government but also impose costs on consumers that exceed
the government’s revenue gain.

So now that we know that Big Government Statist Democrat 33rd Degree Mason FDR was in charge when the New Deal agricultural laws we use today were put
in place, thus making farm subsidies available to Republican landowners, are you going to moan about the hypocrisy while promoting the breaking of our
laws by illegals? Cause that sure is what it seems like to me. What I hear you saying is that it bothers you to subsidize Republican landowners, but
you have no problem with entire wards in hospitals closing down due to nonpayment by undocumented people. But you won't really admit it because
sometimes they turn out to be neurosurgeons.

Fincher and his ultra-right-wing friends in the House are furious about the fact that the worst economic crisis in 80 years has resulted in more
Americans needing food stamps.

Does the term "worst economic crisis" mean anything to you? IE the President's Hope and Change isn't working out so well. "More Americans needing food
stamps"

The article at best sensationalizes what he supposedly said, and replaces his actual statements with suppositions such as

is very angry that the
federal government is committed to preventing poor people from starving to death:

Fincher is very angry that the federal government is committed to preventing poor people from starving to death:

www.alternet.org...
Then we are treated to this complaint(from Nanny Staters to boot who insist on government dependency. Not to mention the Progs are projecting their
own class warfare onto Republicans.
Hear me NOW Wildtimes: MARXISM employs class warfare as a direct strategy to redistribute wealth. That is a fact. Let it be known I am not supporting
corporate welfare or farm subsidies for wealthy people. I am just pointing out the obvious, that when they want to Progs will guilt people into
welfare programs then point fingers at their opponents for using the programs they themselves set up. Remember FDR set up farm subsidies.

The reason this is even more egregious than the usual Republican class warfare is that Fincher himself is a poster boy for government
dependency.

We do get to hear a bible quote though which appears to incriminate him.

Jesus knew that feeding the poor would give them a meal or two but would not bring spiritual salvation to his Disciples through direct contact with
him.

And here is the full context of the passage

The Anointing at Bethany.* 6c Now when Jesus was in Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, 7a woman came up to him with an alabaster jar of
costly perfumed oil, and poured it on his head while he was reclining at table. 8When the disciples saw this, they were indignant and said, “Why
this waste? 9It could have been sold for much, and the money given to the poor.” 10Since Jesus knew this, he said to them, “Why do you make
trouble for the woman? She has done a good thing for me. 11d The poor you will always have with you; but you will not always have me. 12* In pouring
this perfumed oil upon my body, she did it to prepare me for burial. 13Amen, I say to you, wherever this gospel is proclaimed in the whole world, what
she has done will be spoken of, in memory of her.”

Here's the deal Wild: I knew already without even seeing this article that Progs want farm aid for Organic farmers but would vilify Republican
farmowners. It's another Prog hit piece, but it shows that Progs want taxpayers to subsidize Organic farming, that is their own particular favorite
special interest. I happen to like organic whole foods but I just wanted to show you the Progs own hypocrisy. They want farm aid only for their
special people.

The National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC) is an alliance of grassroots organizations that advocates for federal policy reform to
advance the sustainability of agriculture, food systems, natural resources, and rural communities.

Here is what this group says

This is an anti-reform bill — bad for family farmers, rural communities, and the environment," said Ferd Hoefner, the Policy Director of the
National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition. "It will need to be reworked very substantially to gain the support of our coalition of farm and rural
groups as the process moves forward.”

I think the point here is that ANYONE receiving a government handout based on questionable need should probably shut their yap about others receiving
the same.

When Progressives give their own party the same scrutiny I'll give them credit. You apparently did not understand what groups were behind opposing the
farm bill. I pointed out the group which is straight out of Agenda 21. Agenda 21 is basically a pretty name for World Communism run by the Elites.
I hate to say this, but I hear constantly on this site calls for people to "deny ignorance" and I wish that applies for willful ignorance as well.
Some people have a selective ignoring of the truth.
The Democrat Party is now the defacto socialist party as everything they do promotes Big government nanny statism and Totalitarianism, that is
complete centralized control and that is where they are moving. There are Progressives in the Republican party too. I've been hearing them calling to
reform the Republican party to be more like Democrats, but they don't quite say it in those words but it's what it amounts to. They seem to be saying
in order to compete with Democrat popularity we have to be Democrat. That's when you know that operatives of both parties are working for the same
goal....that is the NWO. And Agenda 21 is part of that. The OP will see one day and I will say I told you so.
A disclosure though, I just noticed my article about the farm bill is from 2012, but this new one is rehashing of an annual bill. I saw that a similar
approach to cost cutting has been employed in 2011 as well.
But you see, if we really want to go to the root of the problem it's way more systemic. I have to go back to problem/reaction/solution and the
cloward/piven strategy of overloading government programs in order to bankrupt the system. I didn't make that up. If you don't believe me, Francis Fox
was seen attending an Occupy Wall Street rally. We know that leftist groups primarily made up Occupy and Francis is very far left.

Here's a quote from a former classmate of Barack, and the article outlines the Obama strategy for implementing Cloward/Piven

Barack Hussein Obama is no fool. He is not incompetent. On the contrary, he is brilliant. He knows exactly what he's doing. He is purposely
overwhelming the U.S. economy to create systemic failure, economic crisis and social chaos thereby destroying capitalism and our country from within.
Barack Hussein Obama was my college classmate.(Columbia University, class of '83)

As Glenn Beck correctly predicted from day one, Barack Hussein Obama is following the plan of Cloward & Piven, two professors at Columbia
University... they outlined a plan to socialize America by overwhelming the system with government spending and entitlement demands. - See more at:
henrymakow.com...

What you mean is you can't take criticism when you post bs op-ed hit pieces with virtually no truthful basis. I've given a pretty clear analysis of
this thing, even with criticism for the farm program and still you have to throw mud at my face.
If you want a fair dialogue, why not address the farm subsidy program since the SNAP bill is attached. That would be fair wouldn't it? Here is what
Huffpo, one of your fav sites says

Republican Sen. Pat Roberts of Kansas, the top Republican on the committee in the last session of Congress, criticized the higher subsidies for
Southern farmers, which are essentially a lower threshold for rice and peanut subsidies to kick in.

You and your "Agenda 21" and accusing everyone who's not 'Republican' of being "COMMUNISTS."

It's really sad.

I'm not accusing everyone who is not Republican of being Communist. I said that Agenda 21 is virtually communism. I'm not the only person to say
this, I'm sorry to say, as much as I'd love to have the corner on the idea. I'm sorry you cannot accept truth. That Sustainability group opposed
last year's farm bill. Why won't you face facts?
How can you justify making such inaccurate comments when you know that I have cited liberal Democrats on Agenda 21?
It's a Supermoon full moon lunar eclipse the last 48 hours and people's emotional temperatures are running high. Let's not get so overexcited that
we say untruthful things just to fling poo at people.

Ok here's where someone else uses the term communist to describe Agenda 21

However, as public awareness of the plan has grown in recent years, opposition to the whole scheme has been steadily increasing as well. Numerous
states and local governments, for example, have adopted bi-partisan resolutions condemning UN Agenda 21 as a “socialist” and “communist” plot
completely at odds with the U.S. Constitution, American traditions of self-government, and even fundamental liberties. That trend of resistance is
accelerating.

Here's the bi-partisan support for Agenda 21

While the U.S. Senate never ratified the UN scheme, both Democrat and Republican administrations, working with state and local officials, have
been busy implementing it across the United States for decades

and here is Monsanto's support for it

try and justify this one

Despite the widespread suspicion and criticism plaguing both Monsanto and the global Big Business alliance pushing the UN’s Agenda 21, the
company and the coalition celebrated the move in a recent press release. According to the announcement late last month, the biotech behemoth will be
rolling out a “sustainability” course for its employees all over the world. Chairman and CEO Hugh Grant will represent the GMO company as a
“Council Member” in the global “sustainable development” coalition.

So that's about it now. Monsanto in bed with Sustainable Agenda 21 NGO's in bed with the Obama admin in bed with farm subsidies in bed with
Cloward/Piven strategy for breaking the government and bringing in the Totalitarian global socialist/communist rulership.

So that's about it now. Monsanto in bed with Sustainable Agenda 21 NGO's in bed with the Obama admin in bed with farm subsidies in bed with
Cloward/Piven strategy for breaking the government and bringing in the Totalitarian global socialist/communist rulership.

edit on 26-5-2013 by
ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-5-2013 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

Oh yea, your math is sound there

Just more nutjobs trying to redflag and re-route everything they possibly can to an alleged "immminent totalitarian communist global
assimilation".

Honestly I don't know how you can be taken seriously. Let's see what we've learned from the crowd of communism alarmists:

I think you should probably start taking your medication before you end up downtown, screaming warnings of a bloody apocalypse and waving a cardboard
sign around trying to sell toejam from a pickle jar. Get it together.

So that's about it now. Monsanto in bed with Sustainable Agenda 21 NGO's in bed with the Obama admin in bed with farm subsidies in bed with
Cloward/Piven strategy for breaking the government and bringing in the Totalitarian global socialist/communist rulership.

edit on 26-5-2013 by
ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-5-2013 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

Oh yea, your math is sound there

Just more nutjobs trying to redflag and re-route everything they possibly can to an alleged "immminent totalitarian communist global
assimilation".

Honestly I don't know how you can be taken seriously. Let's see what we've learned from the crowd of communism alarmists:

I think you should probably start taking your medication before you end up downtown, screaming warnings of a bloody apocalypse and waving a cardboard
sign around trying to sell toejam from a pickle jar. Get it together.

You mean just like the Occupy people with their signs saying "Capitalism is Evil" and marching with the Communist Party USA and the neo-nazis and
the homeless bums defecating on the sides of cop cars and having sex in tents in the park and bumming meals off the Internet? You mean like that?

So you are all for the Fed printing as much money as the government would like and then devaluing the dollar accordingly, causing inflation via a
hidden tax....mkay gotcha

So you are all for denying the rights of the unborn mkay gotcha

yes the welfare state is becoming unsustainable. Are you unable to take a hint from Greece and Cyprus?

Obamacare is just tying everything all up in bigger knots than it was, yes it is unsustainable in that mode, yes it is forced and part of the
Totalitarian model.

If you did even the most remote research on Agenda 21 you would see that I am correct. Even the OP hasn't yet disputed me on Monsanto riding the
"sustainable development' wave even while poisoning us with their "seeds of death". Yes, the Sustainable Development NGO Monsanto has thrown in
with promotes Barack and Biden. Yes, even a gay liberal Democrat can be opposed to Agenda 21 and run a website against it.
I was just talking to someone who is a Ron Paul fan who agreed with me that Agenda 21 is basically the face of Communism with a pretty new sounding
name.

What are the goals of Agenda 21? 1)abolition of private property...that is seizing the land by eminent domain or getting people to agree to
conservation easements in which they cannot use their own property
2)getting rid of cars and replacing with bikes and public transportation
3)attacking bourgeois property and affluence--ie no cars, no single family homes, no meat eating
3) control of land and resources, redistribution of wealth thus equalizing affluence so no one has more than any one else
4)transfer of wealth from wealthy countries to less developed ones
5)attack on families-goal is to remove children from their parents and have them live in separate quarters ala It Takes A Village...Hillary style
yep last time I checked those were all goals of communism

Let's just face facts instead of asserting that people you disagree with require medication(oh yah you are sounding a bit like Big Pharma to me)

If you did even the most remote research on Agenda 21 you would see that I am correct. Even the OP hasn't yet disputed me on Monsanto riding
the "sustainable development' wave even while poisoning us with their "seeds of death".

Um...because I gave up on having any kind of lucid discussion with you. "Seeds of Death"? REALLY??

Here's the thing: I'm tired of you saying "you Progressives", when you have NO CLUE what Progressives are really about, or what 'Progressive'
stands for.

The 'most remote research on Agenda 21' has NOTHING to say about communism or socialism. You appear to be an alarmist, and deluded by the "news"
sources you follow.

So......
just know:
I'm done talking to you. You seem to me to be irrational, and therefore it's a waste of my time to attempt to communicate with you..
Kindly refrain, in the future, from 'accusing' me (assuming) of "not disputing you" because of some bizarre theory you have.....
It's not worth my time.

I think you're way out of bounds. And out of touch.
But, whatever.
Just please stop attacking me.

You say this a lot. It is merely a dismissive attitude because you cannot force me to support your positions. I understand that, because who wants to
be proven wrong. Irrational? What part of you don't get my paycheck because you want it is irrational? If some guy walks up to you on the street and
says at gunpoint, give me your money, what are you going to do? Do you think this is appropriate? Would you say oh you poor thing here you deserve my
money? Well the government is doing this to you and me every day. You accept it and I do not.
So you have no problem with Monsanto presenting as "sustainable" while poisoning us with GMO franken foods. I would have thought you at least would
consider the obvious there, and you are calling me irrational....
When some media personality says, "children don't belong to their parents", you seem to accept this and I do not. Because you seem to agree with the
Statist viewpoint and I do not. You view it as irrational to believe that children do not belong to the State....
I have you evidence that people who are against these farm bills every year are part of the Agenda 21 mechanism, and Monsanto is allied with them. I
have given you evidence for all of my positions, and you have to say I must be irrational, because to do otherwise would mean that your positions are
not rational.
You and I will never agree will we? And guess what, I don't want to agree with you.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.